DETAILED ACTION
Summary
Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending in the application. Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b). Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/11/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 recites “the one or more signals indicative of movement” in lines 1-2. It should recite “the one or more signals indicative of the movement”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “one or more signals indicative of movement” in line 9. It is not clear if this is referring to the movement of the emitting apparatus, or if this is referring to a different movement. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
Claim 1 recites “during movement of the emitting apparatus” in line 13. It is not clear if this is referring to the movements previously set forth, or if this is referring to a new movement. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
All claims dependent from the above claims rejected under 35 USC 112(b) are also rejected, as the limitations of the dependent claims fail to cure the deficiencies identified above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 13, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oepping et al. (U.S PGPub 2019/0290236 A1) in view of Koishi et al. (U.S PGPub 2012/0051498 A1) and Stagnitto et al. (U.S PGPub 2012/0230473 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Oepping discloses an emitting apparatus (Fig. 1, 100) [0076] for use with a non-invasive imaging system having an imaging sensor (Fig 1, 108) configured to generate an imaging signal upon an exposure of an energy [0078] (Abstract), the emitting apparatus comprising:
an energy source (Fig. 1, 102) configured to generate the energy [0076];
an emission window (Fig. 1, 104) configured to direct the energy from the energy source [0076] to produce an emission profile on the imaging sensor [0089]-[0090];
a control system (Fig. 1, 110) [0079] configured to:
receive one or more signals associated with movement of the emitting apparatus relative to the imaging sensor [0085]-[0086]+[0088] (the relative position of the x-ray source before and after a movement are signals signal associated with the movement of an emitting apparatus, as the system must move to obtain the new position), and
adjust, based on the one or more signals, a shape of the emission window to produce an adjusted emission profile on the imaging sensor [0087]+[0089].
Oepping fails to explicitly teach wherein the control system is receives, during movement of the emitting apparatus, one or more signals indicative of movement or adjust, during movement of the emitting apparatus, the shape of the emission window.
Koishi teaches an x-ray imaging system (Abstract). This system contains a controller which controls the aperture during movement of the emitting apparatus and based on the movement of the emitting apparatus [0045]-[0046]+[0060]-[0061] This imaging system adjusts the shape of the emission window of the x-ray source during movement of the x-ray source [0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to adjust the shape of the emission window during real-time movement of the energy source, as taught by Koishi, because this ensures that the x-ray images are rectangular regardless of the x-ray position, thereby increasing the quality of the image, as recognized by Koishi [0010]-[0011]+[0068].
While Koishi is controlling the diaphragm during movement, based on the movement, the combination is silent regarding receiving signals indicative of movement.
Stagnitto teaches a system for X-ray imaging (Abstract). This system has an orientation sensor on the emitter [0066]+[0088].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to determine the relative position with a position sensor, as taught by Stagnitta, because this ensures the proper alignment of the source and detector, thereby improving the quality of image, as recognized by Stagnitta [0002]+[0017]-[0018]. One of ordinary skill would recognize that, as the collimator of Koishi is adjusted based on the relative angle [0046], the combined system would obtain the signals indicative of the angle, as taught by Stagnitto [0066], while the system is in use (i.e. moving) to achieve the improvement of increased accuracy in obtaining the images.
Regarding Claim 2, Oepping teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Oepping further teaches wherein the adjusted emission profile is in operative alignment with the imaging sensor (Fig. 3, 109+131) [0089]-[0090].
Regarding Claim 3, Oepping teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Oepping further teaches wherein the adjusted emission profile is within a perimeter of the imaging sensor (Fig. 3, 109+131) [0089]-[0090].
Regarding Claim 5, Oepping teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Oepping further teaches wherein the adjusted emission profile (Fig. 3, 109+131) is scaled and/or rotated relative to the emission profile (Fig. 2, 131) (the emission profile, as indicated by the light field [0063], is clearly rotated from the initial profile in Fig. 2 to the new profile in Fig. 3) [0087].
Regarding Claim 6, Oepping teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Oepping further teaches wherein the emission window comprises a plurality of blades that are movable to adjust the shape of the emission window [0064]+[0076].
Regarding Claim 13, Oepping teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Oepping further teaches where the energy source (Fig. 1, 102) is configured to emit an x-ray energy [0076].
Regarding Claim 16, Oepping teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Oepping further teaches at least one camera (Fig. 1, 116) on the emitting apparatus [0081]-0082] (mechanically connected to the x-ray source), where the at least one camera captures a visible, thermal or infrared image [0081].
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Oepping further teaches wherein the control system is further configured to provide a feedback indicator if the emission profile is not in operative alignment with the imaging sensor [0088].
Claims 4, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oepping in view of Koishi and Stagnitto as applied to claims 3 and 1, respective, above, and further in view of Hyde et al. (U.S PGPub 2015/0250436 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Oepping teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Oepping fails to explicitly teach wherein an exposure area of the adjusted emission profile is maximized on the imaging sensor.
Hyde teaches an x-ray imaging system (Abstract). This system has an exposure area of an emission profile maximized on the imaging sensor [0063].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Oepping to maximize the exposure area on the imaging sensor, as taught by Hyde, because this allows the system to obtain higher quality images while minimizing the patient’s exposure to radiation, as recognized by Hyde [0021].
Regarding Claim 10, Oepping teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Oepping fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more signals are received from an emitting element of the non-invasive imaging system.
Hyde teaches an x-ray imaging system (Abstract). This system uses a camera to obtain position information (i.e. signals) from emitting elements (beacons) [0056].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Oepping to have emitting elements output the signals, as taught by Hyde, because this allows the system to obtain higher quality images while minimizing the patient’s exposure to radiation, as recognized by Hyde [0021], by allowing the alignment of the source and sensor to be more accurate.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Oepping fails to explicitly teach where the emitting element comprises at least one infrared emitter.
Hyde further teaches where the emitting element comprises at least one infrared emitter [0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined system to have emitting elements output the signals, as taught by Hyde, because this allows the system to obtain higher quality images while minimizing the patient’s exposure to radiation, as recognized by Hyde [0021], by allowing the alignment of the source and sensor to be more accurate.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oepping in view of Koishi and Stagnitto as applied to claims 6 and 1, respective, above, and further in view of Laws et al. (U.S PGPub 2015/0164443 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Oepping further teaches a motor assembly [0079] configured to move the plurality of blades to adjust the shape of the emission window [0064]+[0076].
Oepping fails to explicitly teach a motor assembly coupled to the plurality of blades.
Laws teaches a method for collimating x-rays (Abstract). This system has a motor assembly coupled to the plurality of blades [0097].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the actuators of Oepping with motors coupled to the plurality of blades, as taught by Laws, as the as the substitution for one known method of moving collimation blades with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of the motor coupled to the plurality of blades are reasonably predictable.
Regarding Claim 17, Oepping teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Oepping fails to explicitly teach wherein the emitting apparatus is positionable in free space and is uncoupled from any support structure.
Laws teaches a method for collimating x-rays (Abstract). This system is a handheld (i.e. positionable in free space and uncoupled from a support structure) [0037].
It would have been obvious to substitute the method of mounting the x-ray of Oepping with a handheld configuration, as taught by Laws, as the substitution for one known method positioning an x-ray with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of using a handheld x-ray uncoupled from a support structure are reasonably predictable.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oepping in view of Koishi, Stagnitto, and Laws as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Jones (U.S Patent 5,991,362).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Oepping fails to explicitly teach wherein: the plurality of blades is housed in a blade housing having a proximal bearing on a proximal side of the plurality of blades and a distal bearing on a distal side of the plurality of blades, the motor assembly comprises a first motor coupled to the proximal bearing and a second motor coupled to the distal bearing, rotation of the first motor and the second motor in an opposite direction causes opposite movement of the proximal bearing and the distal bearing to increase or decrease a size of the emission window, and rotation of the first motor and the second motor in a first direction causes rotation of the proximal bearing and the distal bearing in the first direction to cause a rotation of the emission window.
Laws the plurality of blades (Fig. 5, 153+155) is housed in a blade housing (Fig. 5, 120) [0070] having a proximal bearing on a proximal side of the plurality of blades (Fig. 5. 122) and a distal bearing (Fig. 5, 132) on a distal side of the plurality of blades [0072], rotation of the first motor and the second motor in an opposite direction causes opposite movement of the proximal bearing and the distal bearing to increase or decrease a size of the emission window [0073]-[0074]+[0076] (one of ordinary skill would recognize the bearings moving in opposite directions would increase or decrease the size of the emission window.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the collimator of Oepping with blades coupled to motors, as taught by Laws, as the as the substitution for one collimator with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of using a collimator with bearings and motors are reasonably predictable.
Laws fails to explicitly teach wherein the motor assembly comprises a first motor coupled to the proximal bearing and a second motor coupled to the distal bearing, and rotation of the first motor and the second motor in a first direction causes rotation of the proximal bearing and the distal bearing in the first direction to cause a rotation of the emission window.
Jones teaches an adjustable opening x-ray collimator (Abstract). This system contains proximal and distal disks (bearings) which are connected to a first and second motor (Fig. 2, M2, M3) (Col 2, lines 41-43). When the disks (and therefore motors) rotate in the same direction is causes the rotation of the emission window (Col 1, lines 40-41) (Col 2-3, lines 59-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to use multiple motors to rotate the bearings, as taught by Jones, as the substitution for one known motor assembly with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of using individual motors per disk are reasonably predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the motors, and therefore disks, rotating in the same direction cause a rotation of the emission window, as taught by Jones, as this allows for a simplified, light, control mechanism to achieve x-ray beams of different shapes and orientations, as recognized by Jones (Col 1, lines 22-25). Jones teaches the disks rotating together (Col 1 lines 40-41) causes the rotation of the emission window, and the motors of the combination control each disk individually. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would recognize the motors, rotating together, in the same direction, would cause the rotation of the emission window.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oepping in view of Koishi, and Stagnitto, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kump (U.S Patent 6,215,853 B1).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. The combination fails to teach where the control system is further configured to monitor a position of each of the plurality of blades using at least one encoder associated with each of the plurality of blades.
Kump teaches a collimation system (Abstract). This system contains collimation blades (Fig. 3, 322-328) which are each attached to a position encoder (Fig. 3, 388-344) (Col 5, lines 11-27)+(Col 5, lines 33-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Oepping to have position encoder associated with the blades, as taught by Kump, because this simplifies the calibration of the collimator, as recognized by Kump (Col 6, lines 1-9).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oepping in view of Koishi, Stagnitto, and Hyde as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Tamersoy (U.S PGPub 2018/0235566 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Oepping fails to explicitly teach at least one optical sensor configured to identify the emitting element to determine a distance between the emitting apparatus and the emitting element.
Hyde further teaches at least one optical sensor configured to identify the emitting element [0056]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined system to have emitting elements output the signals, as taught by Hyde, because this allows the system to obtain higher quality images while minimizing the patient’s exposure to radiation, as recognized by Hyde [0021], by allowing the alignment of the source and sensor to be more accurate.
Hyde is silent regarding the optical sensor determine a distance between the emitting apparatus and the emitting element.
Tamersoy teaches a system for aligning an x-ray source with a sensor (Abstract). This system uses an optical sensor to determine a distance between the emitting apparatus and the element [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to determine a distance using the optical sensor, as taught by Tamersoy, because this allows for more accurate and repeatable alignment of source and detector, as taught by Tamersoy [0041]. One of ordinary skill would recognize the combination would use the emitting elements of Hyde as the marker the determine the distance.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oepping in view of Koishi and Stagnitto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lalena et al. (U.S PGPub 2011/0249793 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Oepping teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Oepping fails to explicitly teach a distance sensor configured to measure a distance from the emitting apparatus to an object placed relative to the imaging sensor.
Lalena teaches a radiography system (Abstract). This system contains a distance sensor which measure a distance from the emitting apparatus to an object placed relative to the imaging sensor [0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to contain a distance sensor, as taught by Lalena, because this allows the system to autofocus the projector, thereby simplifying the process of using the light for source to detector alignments [0057]-[0058].
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oepping in view of Koishi and Stagnitto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ancar (U.S Patent 9,693,746 B2).
Regarding Claim 15, Oepping teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Oepping further teaches a user control interface electrically coupled to the emitting apparatus [0068].
Oepping fails to explicitly teach where the user control interface is configured to control operation of the emitting apparatus.
Ancar teaches a mobile x-ray system (Abstract). This system has a user control interface which is used to control the emitting apparatus (Col 9, lines 33-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the user interface of Oepping with the user interface of Ancar, as the substitution for one known user interface with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of using an interface to control the x-ray system are reasonably predictable.
Regarding Claim 18, Oepping teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Oepping fails to explicitly teach wherein the emitting apparatus is positionable in free space and is coupled to a boom structure.
Ancar teaches a portable x-ray imaging system (Abstract). This system has an emitting apparatus that is positionable in free space and is coupled to a boom structure (Fig. 1, 17) (Col 6-7, lines 65-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Oepping to have the x-ray coupled to a boom structure, as taught by Ancar, because this allows for a mobile x-ray system that is still safe and easy to use, as recognized by Ancar (Col 3, lines 58-62).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oepping in view of Koishi and Stagnitto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nguyen et al. (U.S PGPub 2013/0182829 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Oepping teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Oepping fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more signals indicative of movement of the emitting apparatus are received from one or more magnetic position and orientation sensors.
Nguyen teaches an alignment system for aligning an x-ray source and detector (Abstract). This system generates signals associated with movement of the emitting apparatus using one or more magnetic position and orientation sensors [0018]+[0023].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Oepping to generate signals using magnetic position and orientation sensors, as taught by Nguyen, because this improved the alignment of the source to detector, thereby improving the quality of the image, as recognized by Nguyen [0005].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Neither Oepping alone nor the combination of Oepping and Koishi are relied on to teach the claimed invention. The combination of Oepping, Koishi, and Stagnitto are relied on to teach the claimed invention.
Applicant argues there was no motivation to combine Oepping and Koishi. The Examiner disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the teachings of Koishi (i.e. the adjustment of the collimator during movement) would provide the improvement of maintaining a constant shape on the detector, and thereby improving image quality. "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 (MPEP 2141(II)(C)), and one of ordinary skill, would have been both capable of, and motivated to, modify the Oepping reference to adjust the emission window while moving to achieve the benefit of improved image quality. The claims therefore remain rejected under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D MATTSON whose telephone number is (408)918-7613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEAN D MATTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights